Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[Petronski]

Lots of good reading here:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

[Iscool]

What started it all was your claim that the first Christians 'hung out' in Antioch. Which is untrue.

I say no, so prove it...

[Iscool]

What started it all was your claim that the first Christians 'hung out' in Antioch. Which is untrue.

I say no, so prove it...

[MarkBsnr]

“Why do you pick the OT instructions over the New? Remember that we have Jesus labouriously instructing His Church for three long years, setting Peter up as the steward (the keys, remember?) and we have Paul telling Timothy that the church (not Scripture) is the foundation and pillar of Truth.”

I don’t. I interpret the OT in the light of the NT, believing BOTH to be the breath of God. I just like to read entire books, so to speak.

But in your example, you admit 2 Peter says one thing and yet you pick Psalms over Peter. Now, we should come to an understanding of what you mean the breath of God to be.

Peter was given the keys, and he used them. He opened the kingdom of Heaven to the Jews on Pentecost, and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius.

But that did NOT set up Peter as Steward. At least, none of the other Apostles seemed to have thought him such, and nothing in his statements in Acts or 1 & 2 Peter would suggest it.

Really? One does need an understanding of Kingship and authority and the role of the steward of a kingdom. The keys are specific. Very specific. They confirm everything else. What else is there?

Peter is the first among all the Apostles; when Jesus speaks to the Apostles, He normally spoke to Peter. When a response or statement or question to Jesus was required, Peter normally spoke to Him. Peter is mentioned more in the Gospels than all the other Apostles put together. Peter was the only man to walk on water. We can agree to disagree about the reference to the Rock; but the fact is that Peter was the one addressed. Let us stroll through Acts.

Acts 1. Peter is the first in the list of Apostles. Peter took charge of the Apostles and directed them.

Acts 2. Peter was in charge and spoke for most of the chapter. He commanded those there to repent and be baptized.

Acts 3. Peter and John go to the temple. Peter is in charge and speaks for most of the chapter.

Acts 4. Peter was in charge and led John through the evening of their captivity and spoke to the Jewish authorities.

Acts 5. Peter was in charge and spoke.

Acts 6. No one man in charge.

Acts 7. The martyrdom of Stephen.

Acts 8. The persecution of Paul

Acts 9. The conversion of Paul

Acts 10. Peter is in charge and converts Cornelius (the first Gentile).

Acts 11. Peter is in charge and directs the change in dietary laws.

Pretty convincing to me.

The church IS the support of the truth...not the truth itself.

Read the words of Paul.

1 Timothy 3: 14 6 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. 15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The pillar AND foundation of truth. Not just the support.

And the church is supposed to use scripture: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Useful, yes. All encompassing? No. Scripture itself says that there are many more things. Before any of the NT Scripture was written, the beliefs and the doctrines of the Church were being formed. They predate NT Scripture.

If the church uses scripture - for Paul was writing to Timothy about what he should DO - then “the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Unfortunately, the Catholic Church & its doctrine goes well beyond the faith handed down by the Apostles.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. There is no go beyond unless you are outside of the Church. Then everything is go beyond.

[blue-duncan]

Start with the Old Testament and bring the concept forward.

Joshua 1:8, “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.”

Ps. 1:1-2, “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.”

2 Tim. 2:15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

[Mad Dawg]

MAIN deal:
you still held to the firm view that there is no firm view, except the firm view that when the RCC decides a firm view should be a firm view.

I would say, almost. (I have to say I might be wrong in this. This is all MY own Personal Interpretation of the Theological Enterprise -- and I invite an Inquisition.)

It is the manner of expressing a hard and fast truth that gets my attention. I do not question the hardness and fastness (at least, not wittingly.) Look at the Chalcedonian Definition, for example

Therefore,
following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge
one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
truly God and truly man,
consisting also of a reasonable soul and body;
of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood;
like us in all respects, apart from sin;

as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages,
but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
recognized in two natures,
without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;
the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,
not as parted or separated into two persons,
but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ;
even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him,
and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us,
and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

(here)

It seems to me the natural response of the well-intentioned Christian person in reading this is to have his head explode.

To me, this definition is a hard-won (which doesn't conflict with inspired) solution to the problem, "HOW can we talk and think about WHAT Jesus was without messing up. If we CONFOUND the natures, we mess up this way. If we DIVIDE the person we mess up THAT way. SO we have to say what (to me, and this is the vulnerable part) is almost a negative definition of "we know not what".

But, to be a smart alec, we DO (by God's grace) know what NOT. That is NOT confounded natures, NOT divided person. We know what we can't say.

And that gives us a canon for future conversation. IF we say something that can be reduced, or shown necessarily to imply the confusion or division mentioned, then the TILT buzzer goes off, and we go back to the drawing board.

So, sorta kinda similarly with many (probably not all) of the things we argue about. When ->I<- worry about, say, works v. grace and predestination v. freedom, I sort of want to stalk the boundaries and, ahem, mark the corners.

I see over here, the analogy of the potter and the clay. And I see over there injunctions to persevere (which at least seem to suggest that I have something resembling a choice.) My response is to say, I can't go TOO far in the potter clay direction OR too far in the persevere direction.

So you are right about my alleged thinking because I take delight in the seeming contradiction of "Work out your own salvation --- for it is God that works in you both to will and to do." And I can see how there would be a Hegelian flavor to that. And to some extent I am content to rest there, knowing that it may sometimes feel like everything depends on me but it will still be true that God is doing it all.

As to the rest, I don't think any of us denies that there were some reprehensible and embarrassing Popes. No, actually, there are a few people with whom I interact who seem unable to contemplate with equanimity that there were Popes for whom bastardy was not so much a failing as an art form. (SLIGHT overstatement, maybe just a hobby) Strangely, these people seem pretty anxious about sex generally, but that's an armchair diagnosis. Still, I think of them as representing the lace doily wing of the Catholic Church.

But I digress. I am big on mystery. I see mystery everywhere. Any person is a mystery to me, and when Jesus, an )undivided) Person says, "I am the ...Truth ... ." I immediately conclude, We will NEVER get a conclusive handle on the truth, because (a) One can't comprehend any person and (b) the REAL DEAL is for the Truth to get a handle on US, not the other way round.)

(nearing the end, I promise) So I tend to be allergic to 'pat' and simple formulae, especially ones which seem Procrustean.

What is the work? The work is to believe. But faith is a gift. We say it is an 'infused' virtue. But gift thought it be, it is also a work we are enjoined to 'do.' I'm fine with that.

concluding unscientific postscript:

One of the reasons it is so easy to find incredible theological howlers out of the mouths or pens of Catholics is that they are NOT even attempting "theology," as such. They are talking about their relationship with Christ. I like to suggest a beggar who tells another, "You should ask the king. It works!" Now precisely, "it," that is, asking, doesn't work. The KING works. But we know what the beggar means. But immediately someone would say "Works righteousness!"

Verbosity tank is now empty.

[Quix]

Perhaps you skipped over this paragraph:

Of course she has the option to repent. I wouldn’t hold my breath. She seems to delight in trying to poke God Himself in the eye with a hot poker.

I have prayed that if possible, she may confess, repent and be saved.

My sense is that God has given her over to a reprobate mind as the NT speaks of.

I don’t relate kindly to folks supporting the raping of months old babies with hot curling irons.

There’s not been a shred of a hint of the slightest most sub-atomic particle’s worth of an opening toward the direction of the galaxy that might include repentance.

If any Roman Catholics et al wish to feel supportive of such a person, then may they do so whole-heartedly as unto The Lord.

The baby thing triggered a rising up of Holy Spirit within me in very stern terms.

Make of it what you will.

[Quix]

Great old joke.

[HarleyD]

You would have to have such an interesting discussion when I'm sick in bed with a fever at the moment. It hard enough to read Calvin when I can "think" let alone in a state of death and despair. (I'm always melodramatic when I'm sick.)

I pulled out my John MacArthur's commentary and the pages creaked open to this passage. (It probably would help if I read these books that I buy.) Unfortunately the book is copyrighted but MacArthur makes the point that our Lord Jesus was submissive and empowered by the Spirit during His earthly ministry. Those who spoke against the Holy Spirit were those who actually saw the Holy Spirit's divine power working unquestionably in and through Jesus but willfully refused to accept the implications and attributed it to Satan. It doesn't seem to me to be the type of thing that applies to believers (such as PotS) but unbelievers (TD).

[Quix]

I respect that it has that meaning for you.

I can wrap my mind around it, for you.

It may help you to understand, when I was about 7 or 8 years old, Christ made a devastating hint of the dept of His suffering overwhelmingly real to me.

I forget precisely but I recall being absolutely beside myself for a day or 3 I queried my mother about how He could have possibly loved that much, endured that much. It was almost more than I could bear just thinking about it. I was near hysterical for several hours, at least. It was extremely traumatic for me. Mother didn’t know what to do with me. She was almost beside herself at me being so near hysterical.

Finally, I think at my hoping sort of comment, she agreed that maybe God gave Him special endurance of numbness to the pain or some such. Only at that thought could I begin to return to a lack of hysterical feelings.

I still remember it vividly to this day.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for sharing your testimony, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for those fascinating excerpts from Matthew Henry’s commentary, especially this:

The same Spirit that breathed reason into us breathes revelation among us: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men spoke as they were moved or carried forth by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i. 21. The prophets and apostles did not speak from themselves, but what they received of the Lord that they delivered unto us.

And I perceive additional insight from our dear brother in Christ, Mad Dawg:

I'd say there's a gap between being God-[in]breathed and being God's Breath.

I reckon both of you have been Christian for a long time as I have and have likewise experienced epiphanies now and again, when Scriptures become brilliantly clear owing to a new insight. I also reckon you’ve experienced the subsequent “deer in the headlights” look as you try to explain that insight to others. LOLOL!

This last year I experienced one such epiphany which was slowly building over many years of engaging atheists and agnostics on this forum with my dearest sister in Christ, betty boop. Though ringing with clarity to me, I fully expect a "huh?" reaction from lurkers.

It began with the realization that any living thing is a message (DNA) being communicated. Whether daffodil or man, a particular DNA is the message which describes what/who the living thing specifically “is” or was. When that message is no longer being communicated, the thing is dead even though the message itself survives, e.g. forensics.

That understanding serves as a good definition of what mortal or physical life ‘is.” And the message of ordinary physical life was communicated here:

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. - Genesis 1:20

The message of life peculiar to man (living soul) was additionally communicated in Genesis 2:

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7

Likewise, I perceive that we Christians, born anew in the Spirit, are a message (word of God) being communicated.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: - John 10:27

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

And again,

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. - John 3:5-7

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

And again,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24

Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word. But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. – Luke 10:38-42

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

And again,

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. - Matthew 13:9

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Cor 2:14

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

And again,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. – Revelation 19:11-16

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

And finally,

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4

Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11

I am that bread of life. – John 6:48

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. – 1 Cor 10:1-4

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

I am convinced that God’s adopted children – we Christians – know the words of God when we hear them. They are alive in us or conversely, we are alive in the Word of God.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. – Colossians 3:3

The reader has no doubt noticed that I keep repeating John 6:63. That is because the words of God are not like the words of men, they are spirit and life. We who have been given "ears to hear" cannot be deceived.

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

To the original point, Paul’s certification and the Torah, I hear the words of God in Paul’s manuscripts as surely as the Gospel of Matthew and the Torah. I hear the words of God in John’s manuscripts as surely as the Psalms and the Prophets.

To God be the glory, not man, never man!

[Judith Anne]

The baby thing triggered a rising up of Holy Spirit within me in very stern terms.

There is nothing of the Holy Spirit rising up in the maledictory posts. That was simple human wrath, attempting to use God to punish someone for an evil act; and wrath is one of the most deadly sins.

Your malediction calls for extremely vicious and dreadful punishment of someone who has sinned egregiously against an innocent helpless victim. Yet, when Christ, The Very Most Innocent Holy Helpless Victim was tortured and killed, He prayed for the Almighty Father to forgive his torturers and killers, because they didn't know what they were doing. And ALL may be forgiven if they call on His Name.

Maledictions are occult practices. This is not to say that you are an occultist; but wrath is a sin and persistence in it invites demonic infestation. Leave the sinners that are out of your physical presence to the law and to God, and pray for their conversion and salvation every chance you get, do not call down God's wrath upon them, because of your own. God used His inexpressible power for the Salvation of humankind.

Praying a malediction so dreadful (your post 4398)to the God Who Is Love in the Name of Christ Jesus who died for the sins of ALL mankind is blasphemy, and a practice of the occult.

[MarkBsnr]

What do these snippets have to do with certain Catholics leaving the Church because they can't be bothered with the responsibility of being Christian?

What are Christians to do?

Matthew 22: 34 19 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them [a scholar of the law] 20 tested him by asking, 36 "Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, 22 "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Luke 14: 7 4 He told a parable to those who had been invited, noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table. 8 "When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not recline at table in the place of honor. A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him, 9 and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say, 'Give your place to this man,' and then you would proceed with embarrassment to take the lowest place. 10 Rather, when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that when the host comes to you he may say, 'My friend, move up to a higher position.' Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." 12 Then he said to the host who invited him, "When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment. 13 Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; 14 blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

This is why they leave. They are not willing to follow Christ's teachings.

[wmfights]

You would have to have such an interesting discussion when I'm sick in bed with a fever at the moment.

I'm sorry to hear you're not feeling so good.

I love it to, when we get in to some serious meat and potato's. I'm going to have to get back to you about John MacArthur's thoughts. It may well be one of those things we aren't meant to fully understand, but it is fun to try.

[Quix]

I find it interesting that “adore” is in the verse you cited.

I understand your comment about crosses and pictures of Christ etc.

I’m not really that comfortable with a lot of what some people do with either. I think they have crossed over the line, too—whether they be Pentecostal or what have you.

I have a weighty James Avery neck cross somewhere. I wear it on occasion. It is a statement of my being Christian as well as, in a way, taking up my cross daily.

However, it’s NOT, per se, even an icon to me. It’s more a label or a badge. It has no special power or quality to me of itself beyond being a kind of memento—perhaps a treasured reminder of a time in my life and what Jesus means to me in a way I can visually, tangibly display it to the world. If I found myself feeling or acting overly attached or adoring of it, I’d give it away. I even loaned it to someone for a few years—he was traveling ministering to missionaries and mentioned that he had neglected to bring a cross.

Sometimes, a cross has been useful as a focus or a declaration of Christ’s victory on The Cross in a deliverance session. It was not, though, THAT OBJECT that had any power at all—it was the focus on the principle, the truth that Christ was victorious through His suffering on The Cross.

I sometimes enjoy Hook’s pictures of Christ. However, I don’t really see them as pictures of Christ. I see them as pictures of models that can in the depiction of eyes and face remind us of Christ’s compassion etc.

I can understand that my narrative can easily be described as hair-splitting. I don’t see it that way but I can imagine that some might.

If so, I don’t have anything better to say. It is what it is. At the moment, I don’t have any such pictures or even a cross up in my home. I think my housemate may have in that part of the house, but I don’t.

I have been in some spiritual house-cleansings wherein a crucifix or other relatively more benign depiction turned out not to be benign in that house with those people. And the removing of same brought them life and more spiritual freedom.

[Judith Anne]

And Quix, may God bless you with His close presence in your life, may He grant you your heart’s desire, may He bless you with peace and every virtue, and may He save you and all of us from our sins, in the Holy Name of Christ I pray.

[Quix]

Given my super high priority to try hard to

DO UNTO OTHERS AS I’D PRERFER THEM TO DO UNTO ME . . .

I have no choice—and am deeply humbled by your offer—

though I’d rather you spent your coins on your health.

I do ask that you confirm with MarkOMalley and Betty Boop which version is the best, most current, authoritative, etc. and preferably which also has an online link.

[Quix]

I also assume you know that while you might view such a gift as a missionary effort, there’s an extremely tiny chance of any such result occurring.

[Quix]

Thanks for your example, Mark.

I won’t promise any great footnote searches.

I’m not committing to a Master’s Degree self study in the topic. LOL.

I will give the book a reasonably thorough, thoughtful and full reading. I don’t know what I’ll do with how many footnotes—probably ring your bell if such a question comes up.

[Mad Dawg]

Nope.

I mean, yeah, it’d be totally cool to see you confirmed some Easter.

But that’s not my intention. My intention is to give you the goldarn book. It’s at least good for those insomniac nights.